Thinking about Oral Reading Fluency as an Index of Reading Competence: Conceptual and Measurement Issues Joseph Torgesen, Steve Nettles, Yaacov Petscher Florida State University and the Florida Center for Reading Research DIBELS Summit, March, 2006 Topics to be covered: 1. Some information we should all understand about measures of oral reading fluency and their utility as indices of early reading growth 2. Using measures of Oral Reading Fluency to estimate school level instructional effectiveness Relationships across grades within schools Stability across years within schools Relationships to other measures of school effectiveness Some important background facts: 1. Never in the history of this country has a single set of measures for reading in K-3 so dominated the educational landscape in as DIBELS is currently doing. 2. The Reading First program has provided a significant impetus for the wide-spread adoption of DIBELS measures because of its standards for evidence of reliability and validity for early reading assessments 3. There are many folks in the country who resent the imposition of these standards for the reading assessments acceptable within Reading First, and there are other groups whose assessments are now being used less than previously. Some important background facts: 4. Its natural for any widely used instrument to come under increased research scrutiny, and there is likely to be “special energy” for a critical examination of DIBELS measures Therefore…. Users and promoters of the DIBELS measures must be well informed about both their strengths and weaknesses, and we should also be actively contributing to research that will lead to increased understanding of their limitations and to improvements in their use. A focus on oral reading fluency…. 1. It is arguably the most important of the DIBELS measures 2. It is the primary assessment of growth in reading skill during grades 1-3 in the DIBELS system 3. Although it is a measure of accuracy and rate of oral reading for grade level text, it has been described theoretically as a good index of overall reading competence ORF as an index of reading competence…. “In practice, a high number of words read correctly per minute, when placed in the proper developmental perspective, indicate efficient word-level processing, a robust vocabulary knowledge base, and meaningful comprehension of the text.” (Kame’enui & Simmons, 2001) “ …the fluency with which an individual translates text into spoken words should function as an indicator not only of word recognition skill but also as an indication of an individual’s comprehension of that text (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001)) ORF as an index of reading competence…. “ Fluency is an important focus of instruction that encompasses but extends beyond accurate word recognition and is a causal determinant of higher order skills such as reading comprehension (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001) A focus on oral reading fluency…. 1. It is arguably the most important of the DIBELS measures 2. It is the primary assessment of growth in reading skill during grades 1-3 in the DIBELS system 3. Although it is a measure of accuracy and rate of oral reading for grade level text, it has been described theoretically as a good index of overall reading competence 4. It is strongly correlated with reliable measures of reading comprehension, and is a good predictor of end-of-year performance on these measures Most important criticisms…. 1. Reliance on a single measure like ORF for progress monitoring can potentially confuse teachers, and mislead their instruction if they come to believe that a principle goal is “fast reading” 2. When students perform the ORF task, they do not typically engage in deep levels of comprehension. “Speed Reading Without Comprehension, Predicting Little” (Pressley, Hilden, Shankland, submitted for publication) 3. It is not an accurate enough predictor to serve as the primary monitor of growth in early reading competence So, what about the relationship between ORF and reading comprehension? Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with most falling around .70. The strength of the relationship depends upon such things as: The measure of reading comprehension N=218 R=.76 N=218 R=.56 Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with most falling around .70. The strength of the relationship depends upon such things as: The measure of reading comprehension Age/grade level of students Reading First 1st grade r = .79 2nd grade r = .70 3rd grade r = .69 Representative Sample 3rd r = .76 7th r = .66 10th r = .57 Schatschneider, et al., 2004) These correlations indicate that performance on brief measures of oral reading fluency is strongly correlated with performance on measures of reading comprehension. However, they don’t tell us directly how useful the ORF measures actually are in identifying students likely to struggle on comprehension measures For that, we need predictive utility data Hi risk Mod. Risk Low Risk Prediction from first of year in third grade 90 10 19 3rd Grade-MASS 25 Florida Orf > 78 46 Orf from 53 to 77 20 31,000 students <53 30 Percent Grade level on FCAT 40 40 Orf > 78 50 Orf from 53 to 77 60 72 <53 70 Percent Proficient on MCAS 80 86 3,339 students The More complex Question of Causality Is there a causal relationship between ORF and reading comprehension, or is the relationship only correlational? The predictive utility of ORF measures do not require that the relationship between ORF and RC be causal in nature However, the recommendation to teach ORF in order to have an impact on Reading Fluency is based on a causal assumption. What evidence do we have that there is a causal connection? What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection? Some definitions of reading fluency “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284). Five common methods for identifying words in text (Ehri, 2002) 1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes to form recognizable words (decoding) 2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a more advanced form of decoding) 3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly and effortlessly with practice 4. By analogizing to words already known by sight 5. By predicting words from context Five common methods for identifying words in text (Ehri, 1999) 1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes to form recognizable words (decoding) 2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a more advanced form of decoding) 3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly and effortlessly with practice 4. By analogizing to words already known by sight 5. By predicting words from context Although all these methods for reading words become more fluent with practice, fluency increases most dramatically as more words become identifiable “by sight.” These are iNTirEStinG and cHallinGinG times for anyone whose pRoFEshuNle responsibilities are rEelaTed in any way to liTiRucY outcomes among school children. For, in spite of all our new NaWLEGe about reading and reading iNstRukshun, there is a wide-spread concern that public EdgUkAshuN is not as eFfEktIve as it shood be in tEecHiNg all children to read. The report of the National Research Council pointed out that these concerns about literacy derive not from declining levels of literacy in our schools but rather from recognition that the demands for high levels of literacy are rapidly accelerating in our society. The Fluency Challenge….. “One of the great mysteries to challenge researchers is how people learn to read and comprehend text rapidly and with ease. A large part of the explanation lies in how they learn to read individual words. Skilled readers are able to look at thousands of words and immediately recognize their meanings without any effort.” Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II. December, 3rd Grade Correct word/minute=60 19th percentile The Surprise Party My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise. I helped mom organize the guest list and write the invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and return addresses on them….. December, 3rd Grade Correct word/minute=128 78th percentile The Surprise Party My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise. I helped mom organize the guest list and write the invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and return addresses on them….. Some definitions of reading fluency “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284). “freedom from word recognition problems that might hinder comprehension” (Literacy Dictionary, Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 85). “Fluency is the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression” National Reading Panel, 2000 “Fluency involves accurate reading at a minimal rate with appropriate prosodic features (expression) and deep understanding” Hudson, Mercer, and Lane (2000, p. 16). If comprehension is included as part of the definition of fluency, then questions about the causal relationships between fluency and comprehension disappear However, when we assess ORF, we do not directly assess comprehension, we assess rate of reading The question we address here is whether there are causal relationships between the processes that contribute to individual differences in oral reading rate and the processes that are required for good performance on measures of reading comprehension Within current reading theory, we can identify two major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is commonly measured) might be related causally to individual differences in reading comprehension Efficient, or automatic, identification of words allows the reader to focus more attention on the meaning of the passage Comprehension processes themselves may cause individual differences in reading rate. These comprehension processes influence both fluency and comprehension tasks. Within current reading theory, we can identify two major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is commonly measured) might be related causally to individual differences in reading comprehension Efficient, or automatic, identification of words allows the reader to focus more attention on the meaning of the passage Comprehension processes themselves may cause individual differences in reading rate. These comprehension processes influence both fluency and comprehension tasks. The idea that automatic word recognition processes make it possible to focus more attentional resources on comprehension was initially popularized by the work of LaBerge and Samuals (1974) They developed a model of reading with the concept of automaticity as one of its central features 1. A complex skill like reading requires the rapid and efficient coordination of many processes 2. If enough processes are executed automatically, then the attentional load remains within tolerable limits. 3. Word identification processes are more likely to become automatic than comprehension processes “There is…evidence that automaticity is acquired only in consistent task environments, as when stimuli are mapped consistently onto the same responses throughout practice. Most of the properties of automaticity develop through practice in such environments.” (Logan, 1988) “In fact, the automaticity with which skillful readers recognize words is the key to the whole system…The reader’s attention can be focused on the meaning and message of a text only to the extent that it’s free from fussing with the words and letters.” Marilyn Adams Why is fluency important? Because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. “Fluency, it seems, serves as a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Because when fluent readers are able to identify words accurately and automatically, they can focus most of their attention on comprehension. They can make connections among the ideas in the text and between the text and their background knowledge. In other words, fluent readers can recognize words and comprehend at the same time. Less fluent readers, however, must focus much of their attention on word recognition…The result is that nonfluent readers have little attention to devote to comprehension” (Osborn, Lehr, and Hiebert, 2003) The Evidence: When reading rate is increased through the use of repeated reading techniques, comprehension also increases (16 studies-NRP report) Effect size for fluency = .44 Effect size for comprehension = .35 Problem: a variety of techniques were actually mixed together in these findings A more recent meta-analysis focusing only on repeated reading studies reported these effect sizes (THERRIEN, 2004) Effect size for fluency = .50 Effect size for comprehension= .25 Problem: processes other than word reading efficiency might be enhanced by repeated reading practice The Evidence (cont.): What we need is evidence that practice which focuses solely on increasing word reading efficiency can also increase text reading fluency and reading comprehension Can practice specifically targeted on word reading efficiency improve fluency and comprehension? What do we mean by context-free practice?: animal faster happy never time sleep rabbit The Evidence (cont.): Recently, Levy, Abello, and Lysnchuk(1997) reported a carefully controlled study with 4th grade poor readers in which context free practice to increase speed of word identification positively affected both fluency and comprehension Critical features 1. intensive fluency practice-every word recognized in less than 1 seconds 2. Used long stories that places particular demands on fluency 3. Stories were at the appropriate level of difficulty for each student To summarize: Increasing rate through repeated reading practice also increases comprehension Not direct evidence for a causal connection between reading fluency and reading comprehension It is evidence that repeated reading practice, by itself, can improve both fluency and comprehension There has been at least one demonstration that increasing rate through isolated word practice can increase reading comprehension Evidence that efficiency of single word reading processes has a causal influence on comprehension - beginning Across these definitions of fluency, we can identify two major ways that individual differences in ORF might be related causally to individual differences in reading comprehension Efficient identification of words allow a focus on the meaning of the passage Comprehension processes themselves may contribute to individual differences in reading rate. These comprehension processes are shared between fluency and comprehension tasks. The Evidence: Some level of comprehension is occurring for most students as they read the words on ORF passages. Although students remember more of the content from ORF stories if prompted to remember, they do remember a significant amount with only a cue to “do their best reading” (O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1987) There is experimental evidence to indicate that comprehension processes (identifying anaphoric referents, integrating propositions in text with background knowledge, inferencing) can also become automatized with reading practice. (Perfetti, 1995) This means they can occur without the specific “intention to comprehend.” The Evidence: How could automatically occurring comprehension processes affect rate of reading on ORF tasks? There is experimental evidence for fast acting, automatic spreading of semantic activation thast does not consume attention resources…words are primed for easier recognition (Posner & Snyder, 1975). The Evidence: Jenkins, et al., (2003) asked 113 4th grade students with a broad range of reading ability to perform three tasks: 1. ORF following standard (best reading) cue. 2. ORF with words in passage arranged in random order in a list 3. ITBS reading comprehension test The Evidence: WPM Text = 127 WPM List = 83 Processes unique to reading meaningful text supported more fluent reading of words – spreading activation based on comprehension facilitates fluency – is one possibility Correlation with ITBS Text = .83 List = .53 Test format that allowed comprehension processes (presumably operating in both ORF and comprehension test) to influence rate led to higher correlation – word reading that is influenced by comprehension is more correlated with comprehension than just word reading efficiency alone Conclusions: 1. Both single word identification processes and comprehension processes contribute to individual differences in oral reading fluency for text a. At the lower end of the ORF continuum, word reading efficiency makes a stronger unique contribution in explaining variance in fluency b.At the higher end of the ORF continuum, comprehension processes make a stronger unique contribution to explaining variance in fluency. Individual Differences in Oral Reading Fluency are influenced by different factors, depending on level of fluency Single word reading efficiency 2nd 16th Automatic comprehension processes 50th Standard Scores 84th 98th Conclusions (cont.): ORF is correlated with reading comprehension because 1. Both ORF and reading comprehension depend to some extent on efficiency of single word reading processes 2. Both ORF speed and reading comprehension scores are influenced to some extent by the efficiency of comprehension processes that facilitate performance on both tasks Reading Processes measured by ORF facilitate performance on tests of Reading Comprehension Next question: Are the two direct causal connections the only reason that ORF is related to performance on tests of reading comprehension? A reminder about correlations A can be correlated with B because: A causes B (good reading rate enables comp.) B causes A (comp. enables good reading rate) Both A and B are caused by C (comp. and rate are both influenced by experience) Fluency can be correlated with comprehension because individual differences in both skills are caused by differences in: Reading experience Home environment and support Motivation to succeed in school Reading Experience Motivation to succeed in school Fluency Reading comprehension through vocabulary increases Fluency Reading comprehension through development of reading strategies “…motivated students usually want to understand text content fully and therefore, process information deeply. As they read frequently with these cognitive purposes, motivated students gain in reading comprehension proficiency” Guthrie, J.T. (et al.) (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-421. Differences in SES cause differences among students in both comprehension and fluency Lower SES students: Lower vocabulary Lower Comprehension Less support for reading in the home –less practice Lower Comprehension Lower Fluency Less preparation in preschool environment for early acquisition of alphabetic principle Lower Fluency Less exposure to books Fewer opportunities to develop rich content knowledge Lower Comprehension Lower Fluency Lower Comprehension Differences in SES cause differences among students in both comprehension and fluency Differences in learning opportunities and motivation for school learning that are associated with differences in SES cause both: Lower Comprehension ??? Lower Fluency N=218 ORF R=.76 Vocab R=.69 NVR R = .48 Mem R = .35 Total R2 = 71% Common = 43.5% ORF = 18.9% Vocab = 7.1% NVR = 1.2% Mem = .3% ORF Unique R = .43 What is the practical meaning of these analyses in terms of the potential impact of interventions that increase just reading fluency If we based our estimate of the impact of these interventions on the raw correlation between ORF and comprehension, we would expect: A 10 WPM gain on ORF would produce a 12.5 point gain on the FCAT If we controlled for the joint, and shared, contribution of vocabulary, nonverbal reasoning, and memory, we would expect: 10 WPM gain on ORF would produce an 8.6 point gain on the FCAT Conclusions from analysis of causal relations between ORF and reading comprehension: Interventions that focus directly on increasing oral reading fluency are likely to have an impact on performance on broad comprehension measures for two reasons: They are likely to increase the efficiency of word reading processes that has an enabling effect on reading comprehension If students read for meaning when they practice, they are likely to establish automatic comprehension processes that will help them on comprehension tests as well as help to increase their reading fluency Something else to think about: “Fluency is the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression” National Reading Panel What is the role of prosody in fluent reading? Why is prosody important? Should teachers spend time modeling prosody and encouraging students to read with expression? What are the causal relationships among prosody, comprehension, and reading rate? Possible Causal connections: If children will read with expression, it helps them understand what they are reading Prosody indicates that the child is apprehending the meaning of what is being read-prosody reflects comprehension The relationship between prosody and reading comprehension Certainly, when speech is given with proper prosody and expression, it helps the listener to comprehend Does it work the same way for reading? Does the reader listen to his/her own prosody as an aid to comprehension? The evidence is not definitive on this point, but it seems most likely that prosody is primarily a reflection of comprehension, rather than a cause of it. Schwanenflugel, P.J., et al., Becoming a Fluent Reader: Reading Skill and Prosodic Features in the Oral Reading of Young Readers, Journal of Educational Psychology, 2004, 119-129 Purpose of these indices within Reading First in Florida To provide a regular stimulus throughout the year for principals, coaches and teachers to look more closely at their student data To provide an additional index of school improvement from year to year in reading first. To help identify schools that are performing poorly on indices that have compelling face validity LNF PSF NWF Patterns of Performance Categorized as “Initial” or “Grade Level” performance at Assessment 1 in First Grade Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Smith, S., Simmons, D., Kame'enui, E., & Wallin, J. (In press).Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evaluate a school's core curriculum and system of additional intervention in kindergarten. In S. R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Also available on the DIBELS website. PSF NWF ORF Patterns of Performance Categorized as “Initial” or “Grade Level” performance at Assessment 4 in First Grade LNF PSF NWF Patterns of Performance Categorized as “at risk” at Assessment 1 in First Grade PSF NWF ORF Patterns of Performance Categorized as “at risk” at Assessment 4 in First Grade Core and Intervention effectiveness in year 1 and 2 K year 1 year 2 ECI 82% 87% 1st year 1 year 2 58% 65% 14% 15% 2nd year 1 year 2 70% 72% 6% 5% 3rd 84% 81% 15% 14% year 1 year 2 EI 45% 55% .50 Average ECI for grades 1-3 .90 .02 .25 Average EI for grades 1-3 To what extent are EI and ECI influenced by “degree of difficulty” of schools? 60 Average = 73% 50 Sch Yr. 04-05 100 % 40 30 20 40 % 10 Std. Dev = 15.97 Mean = 74.4 N = 315.00 0 0 0. 10 .0 90 .0 80 .0 70 .0 60 .0 50 .0 40 .0 30 .0 20 .0 10 0 0. Percent Freefree/reduced Reduced Percent lunch students 100 % 40 Average = 61% Sch Yr 04-05 30 20 10 % 10 Std. Dev = 25.32 Mean = 59.9 N = 315.00 0 0 0. 10 .0 90 .0 80 .0 70 .0 60 .0 50 .0 40 .0 30 .0 20 .0 10 0 0. Percent minority students Percent Minority 100 0.0% Average = 12% 80 Sch yr 04-05 60 40 70.0% 20 Std. Dev = 16.10 Mean = 14.3 N = 315.00 0 0 0. 10 .0 90 .0 80 .0 70 .0 60 .0 50 .0 40 .0 30 .0 20 .0 10 0 0. Percent LEPEnglish Language Learners Percent Percent of variance accounted for Relationship of student demographics to various outcome measures 90 81 80 1st=9% 70 2nd =19% 3rd =8% 60 50 1st=3% 2nd =7% 3rd =5% 40 30 20 50 23 18 6 10 ECI EI ORF Reading Comp. PPVT Are ECI’s and EI’s consistent across grades within schools? ECI Average from Year 1 and Year 2 2nd .31 3rd .19 .33 1st 2nd EI Average from Year 1 and Year 2 2nd .03 3rd .14 .30 1st 2nd What about consistency within grade across years and overall consistency? ECI correlations between year 1 and year 2 1st 2nd 3rd All .35 .26 .20 .48 EI correlations between year 1 and year 2 1st 2nd 3rd All .21 .21 .11 .21 What about consistency within extreme groups? For the ECI index Top Year 2 quartile schools in Year 1 55% in top quartile 75% in top half 7% in bottom quartile For the EI index Top Year 2 quartile schools in Year 1 41% in top quartile 60% in top half 18% in bottom quartile What about consistency within extreme groups? For the ECI index Bottom Year 2 quartile schools in Year 1 10% in top quartile 74% in bottom half 54% in bottom quartile For the EI index Bottom Year 2 quartile schools in Year 1 8% in top quartile 63% in bottom half 29% in bottom quartile Improvements in ECI and EI in relationship to Improvements in Reading Comp. Outcomes Schools are expected to increase the percentage of students reading at grade level each year they implement reading first If a school increased its ECI and EI from the first year to the second year, was this associated with improvements in the percent of students at grade level? Changes in percent of students at grade level are calculated by subtracting the the percent at grade level in the 1st year from the percent at grade level in the 2nd year. Positive numbers represent improvement. -.15 +.17 YY change in %ECI of students achieving grade Average for grades 1-3 level standard for reading comp. In grades 1-3 -.23 +.27 YY change in ECI grades1-3 Average ECIacross for grades 1-3 Relationships between improvement in DIBELS indices and improvement in reading comprehension outcomes ECI ECI+EI Grade 1 .41 .37 Grade 2 .20 .21 Grade 3 .17 .24 Overall .33 .43 Conclusions about the ECI and EI Indices 1. They have face validity as indicators of core instructional effectiveness and intervention effectiveness 2. The ECI is more responsive to school level “degree of difficulty than is the EI index 3. Neither index shows strong consistency across grade levels within schools 4. Both indices also showed marked lack of overall stability within grade levels from year 1 to year 2 5. There was a reasonable degree of year to year stability when extreme groups were considered. It is not common for schools to move from the highest to lowest quartile in successive years on either index. Conclusions about the ECI and EI Indices 6. Year to year improvement on the indices was more strongly correlated with improvement in reading comprehension at first grade than for grades 2 and 3. 7. Overall, changes in instructional effectiveness as measured by the ECI and EI were modestly related to YY improvements in percent of students at grade level in reading comprehension. Now, to finish on two inspirational notes… Inspirational Note #1: What DIBELS has done for Florida 1. It has helped us document big changes that have occurred in instruction in kindergarten in RF schools 2. It has helped us clearly see that our first grade instruction in the alphabetic principal (phonics) is not strong enough to meet the needs of many of the students in our RF schools.. 3. It has helped us clearly see that students in second grade do not make the necessary growth in reading fluency from the beginning to the end of the year 4. It has also documented the fact that, although third grade teachers are “holding their own” in fluency development for their students, the students enter third grade with fluency levels that are way too low. Inspirational note #2: A reason for working toward continuous improvement…. Thank You www.fcrr.org Science of reading section References: Adams, M. J. (1991). A talk with Marilyn Adams. Language Arts, 68, 206-212 Ehri, L.C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.D., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-259. Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kame’enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes assessment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288. Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B. & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading Fluency Assessment and Instruction: What, Why, and How? The Reading Teacher (in press) Hudson, R.F., Mercer, C.D., & Lane, H.B. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville. Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D.C. (2001). Introduction to this Issue: The DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203-210. Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S.L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729. Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychologist, 6, 293-323. Levy, B.A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain. (pp. 357-382). Parkton, MD: York Press. Levy, B.A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 173-188. Logan, G.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527. Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, D.C. Osborn, J., Lehr, F., & Hiebert, E.H. (2003). A Focus on Fluency. Monograph published by Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Copies available at www.prel.org/programs/rel/rel.asp. O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1987). The effects of repeated reading and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehension of leaming disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 103-109. Perfetti, C.A. (1995). Cognitive research can inform reading education. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 106-115. Pressley, M. P., Hilden, K. & Shankland, R. (submitted). An evaluation of endgrade-3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little.Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The Fluent Reader. New York: Scholastic Schatschneider, C., Buck, J., Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Hassler, L., Hecht, S., & Powell-Smith, K. (2005). A multivariate study of factors that contribute to individual differences in performance on the Florida Comprehensive Reading Assessment Test. Technical Report # 5, Florida Center for Reading Research, Tallahassee, FL. Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A.M., Kuhn, M.R., Wisenbaker, J.M., & Stahl, S.A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119-129. Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252-261 Guthrie, J.T. (et al.) (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-421.